be seen in the orations of Nicetas the Pa

phlagonian *."

The late introduction of the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift is obferved by the emperor Julian. He fays, that " none of "Chrift's disciples, except John, said that "he made the heavens and the earth, and "that not clearly and plainly +."

SECTION II.

Reflections on the fubject.

AFTER reading thefe teftimonies, so co

pious, and fo full to my purpose, and uncontradicted by any thing in antiquity, it is not poffible to entertain a doubt with respect to the opinion of the christian Fathers on this fubject. They must have δείκνυων της (άρκος την αληθειαν ένα συ μάθης ότι ει δε Θεος ην, αλλά και άνθρωπος ην. In John ii. vol. 1, p. 726. * Combefis Auctuarium, vol. 1. p. 362.

† Ως δε ύμεις θελετε, τον κράνον και την γην απεργασα μενα. γαρ δη ταυτα τετολμηκε τις ειπείν περί αυτό των μαθητών, ει μη μόνο Ιωάννης, έδε αυτος σαφως, εδε τραγως. Cyr. Con. Jul. lib. 6. Juliani, Opera, vol. 2. p. 213.

thought

thought that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Chrift had not been preached with any effect before the writing of John's gospel; and, confequently, that before that time the great body of chriftians must have been unitarians; and they are far from giving the leaft hint of any of them having been excommunicated on that account. On the other hand, the apprehenfion was, left those who preached doctrines fo new and offenfive, as thofe of the pre-existence and divinity of Chrift, should have been rejected with abhorrence.

When we confider how late the three first gofpels were written, the last of them not long before that of John, which was near, if not after, the deftruction of Jerufalem, and that, in the opinion of the writers above-mentioned, all this caution and referve had been neceffary, till that late period, on the part of the christian teachers; how is it poffible that, in their idea, the chriftian church in general should have been well established in the belief of our Lord's divinity? It could only have been great and open zeal on the part of the apostles

L3

apostles, and not the timid caution and management which these writers afcribe to them, that could have effectually taught doctrine which, according to them, the people were ill prepared to receive. And the hiftory of both Peter and Paul fufficiently prove that the influence of mere apoftolical authority was not fo great at that time as many perfons now take it to have been. Whatever power they had, they were not confidered as lords over the faith of chriftians.

The chriftians of that age required fomething more than the private opinion of an apoftle. They required fome fuper-natural evidence that his doctrine was from God; and we have no account of the apoftles propofing to them this additional article of faith, and alledging any fuch evidence for it. Chryfoftom fays, "if the Jews were "fo much offended at having a new law

fuperadded to their former, how much "more would they have been offended, if "Chrift had taught his own divinity." May it not be fuppofed, therefore, that they would have required as particular evidence

of

of a divine revelation in the one cafe as in the other? And what remarkably strong evidence was neceffary to convince them. that the obligation of their law did not extend to the Gentiles ? Would they, then, have received what Chryfoftom confidered as the more offenfive doctrine of the two, without any pretence to a particular revelation on the fubject?

It may be faid, that all the caution of which we have been fpeaking was neceffary with refpect to the unbelieving Jeres only, into whofe hands thefe gofpels, and the other writings of the New Testament, might fall. But how impoffible must it have been to conceal from the unbelieving Jews the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, if it had been a favourite article with the believing Jews. If this had been the cafe, it could not but have been known to all the world; and, therefore, all the offence that it could have given would have been unavoidable. So that this fuppofed caution of the evangelifts, &c. would have come too late, and would have answered no purpose whatever.

"with the Lord *."

"But now, with an

open voice, he fays, that he is God, and "was always with God, laying open the "mystery of Godt."

A very particular and copious account of the pre-eminence of John, in confequence of his teaching the doctrines of the preexistence and divinity of Chrift, which had been omitted by the other evangelifts, may likewise be seen in the epiftle of Paulinus, which I put in the notes .

*Cæteri quippe evangeliftae, qui temporalem Chrifti nativitatem et temporalia ejus fa&ta, quæ geffit in homine, fufficienter exponunt, et de divinitate pauca dixerunt, quafi animalia greffibilia cum domino ambulant in terra: hic autem pauca de temporalibus ejus geftis edifferens, fed divinitalis potentiam fublimius contemplans, cum domino ad cœlum volat. In John Pref. Opera, vol. 9. p.

5.275

Nunc autem aperta voce dicit cum effe deum et fumper fuiffe apud deum, facramentum patefaciens dei. Queftiones Mixta, vol. 4. p. 858.

Idem ultra omnium tempora apoftolorum ætate producta poftremus evangeli fcriptor fuiffe memoratur, ut ficut de ipfo vas elections ait, quafi columna firmamentum adjiceret fundamentis ecclefie, prioris evangelii fcriptores confona auctoritate confirmans, ultimus auctor, in libri

tempore,